Dao, Khanh and Derivative Parties v. Silva, Phil and Inventors Pho Partners, LLC and Pho Colonial 1623 Main, LLC

AFFIRM; Opinion issued 1 ovember 29, 2012
In The
Qtiitrt f iats
.fiftI! District nf xas &tt a11t
No. 05-12-00331-CV
KHANH DAO, Appellant
V.
PHIL SILVA, Appellee
and
P110 PARTNERS, LLC and
P110 COLONIAL 1623 MAIN STREET, LLC, Intervenors/Appellecs
On Appeal from the 192 Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-16235-K
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Richter, and Lang
Opinion By Justice Bridges
Appellant Khanh Dao appeals from the trial court’s order granting appellees’ application for
temporary injunction. In nine issues, Dao complains: (1) the relief granted is void, because the trial
court must rule on a motion to strike before considering other matters brought by the Intervenors;
(2) the temporary injunction should be dissolved because Silva has no standing to assert the pleaded
claims; (3) the Intervenors have no capacity to assert claims against Dao; (4) the Intervenors have
failed to show a justiciable interest; (5) the Intervenors cannot defend a derivative action on the
merits, and there is a thial conflict of interest; (6) the trial court misapplied the law. governing its
equitable power to “balance the harms” (7) the trial court abused its discretion by entbrcing an
injunctive order that likely alters the status quo and fails to preserve the subject matter of the dispute
(8) the order violates rule 683 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and (9) the order improperly
asserts ‘findings” in violation of rules 296-299aofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. We affirm.
Analysis
Under rule 34.6(b). an appellant must request in writing that the official reporter prepare the
reporter’s record. TEx. R. Apr. P. 34.6(h). If the appellant only requests a partial reporter’s record.
the appellant must include in the request a statement of the points or issues to be presented on appeal
and will then be limited to those points or issues. Id. at 34.6(c).
The record before us lacks any request for the reporter’s record. Further, the record only
contains a partial reporter’s record from the temporary injunction hearing. In this case, the clerk’s
record does not include a request to the court reporter. showing a statement of the points or issues
relied upon or other document showing the points or issues relied upon. The partial reporter’s record
before us indicates the evidentiary portion of the hearing was not requested, and the partial record
begins only after the trial court closed evidence.
Generally. in an appeal with only a partial reporter’s record, we must presume the omitted
portions of the record are relevant and support the trial court’sjudgment. In reA. W..P., 200 S.W.3d
242. 244 (‘l’ex. App.—Dallas 2006. no pet.). When, as here, an appellant fails to file a notice of issues
with the clerk, we assume the missing portions of the record support the trial court’s judgment. See
Id. at 245; TEx. R. App. P. 34.6(c). Strict compliance with rule 34.6(c) is necessary to activate the
presumption the omitted portions of the record are irrelevant. $4,310 in US. Currency, et al. v. The
State of Texas, 133 S.W.3d 828, 829 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.). Because Dao neither filed
a complete record on appeal nor complied with the partial reportefs record provisions of rule 34.6.
we must presume the omitted reporters record supports the judgment. See A. IV. P.. 200 S.W.3d at
245; 84,310 in US, Currency, 133 S.W.3d at 829-30; TEx. R. App. P. 34.6 (b), (c).
Without a record to review, we cannot say the trial court erred in ruling on appellees
application for temporary injunction prior to appellant’s motion to strike or abused its discretion in
granting the temporary injunction. See Amenclv. Wa/son, 333 S.\V.3d 625. 627 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2009, no pet.): TEx. R. App. P. 34.6(c). See also TEx. R. Civ. P. 683 (“The appeal of a temporary
injunction shall constitute no cause for delay of the trial.”). We. therefore. affirm the judgment of
the trial court.
DAViD L. BRIDGES’
JUSTICE
12033 IF.P05
(!tiitrt tif Appca1
.YiftIi Dhitrirt tif ixa tt aI1a
JUDGMENT
KHANI-l DAO. Appellant Appeal from the l921d Judicial District of
Dallas County. Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. DC-Il -
No. 05-12-00331-CV V. 16235-K).
Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges,
PHIL SILVA, Appellee Justices Richter and Lang.
and
P110 PARTNERS. LLC AND PI1()
COLONIAL 1623 MAIN STREET. LLC.
intervenors/Appellees
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date. the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that appellees Phil Silva, Pho Partners. LL C and Pho Colonial
1623 Main Street, LLC recover their costs of this appeal from appellant Khanh Dao.
Judgment entered November 29. 2012.
DAVID L. BRiDGES
JUSTICE